Tight Times, Tough Choices-- St. Monica's School (2/19/09) part ii

In small working groups, citizens reviewed list of budget cuts and revenue options the PPCE constructed from the city’s budget scenarios. Working first as individuals, then as a group, citizens prioritized ways to close the budget gap by placing them into four "buckets" — Low-Hanging Fruit, No Ways No Hows, Shared Pain, and Gut Wrenchers. "Low-Hanging Fruit" means those options that are immediate "winners", that generate a quick consensus. "No Ways No Hows" represent the immediate "losers," or those choices citizens believe to be off the table. "The Shared Pain" bucket contains those options that are unpleasant and unpopular, but that they feel would be acceptable. "Gut Wrenchers" are those choices that no one wants to make but they recognize as what needs to be done to help the city as a whole.

Below you will find links to each group's moderator report, which includes the four buckets and the discussion that led citizens to make those choices, as well as memorable quotes or creative ideas that came up during the process.

Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9

Group 6

Moderators: Rochelle Krombolz and Onaje Mujid
Total points: 68
Group Description

Our group was composed of 17 people initially with two participants leaving early because of schedule conflicts (vs. frustration or something else). The demographics were as follows: 10 women, 7 men, 5 African American, 11 white/Caucasian, 1 other. We had two or three city employees from various departments. Ages ranged from about mid-20s to mid-late-50s with an average toward the middle of that range. This was an energized group that was very receptive to the process. Members responded extremely well to working in small groups before reporting back to the larger group. It appeared that all participants were active and being listened to in the small groups; similarly, there was not an issue of one or just a few participants dominating the group discussion. A few participants were particularly knowledgeable about aspects of city government and certain departments. They offered helpful insights periodically as did our observer from the city when one of the moderators asked him to do so.

All participants were courteous to their peers, listened and respectfully offered complementary or differing opinions on issues. This group had a number of items where they agreed to either take heavier cuts to receive more points, or to create some conditions or exceptions that resulted in fewer points. The group was very comfortable with the process of taking the votes. This team deliberated and shared ideas such that they were able to come up with a solid number of points through a number of different cuts/revenue drivers. The most dramatic decision the group made was to increase the residential wage tax by .4% with some caveats vs. the suggested .01% or .1%. This resulted in a large number of points from just one item (40 pts). We spent the majority of our time on "Low Hanging Fruit," and generated "No Way, No How's" in the last 20 minutes of the session. We had no "other ideas," no items that were voted into "Shared Pain," and we did not get to "Gut Wrenchers."

No dissenting work sheets were filed. Most participants completed pre- and post-workshop surveys.

Low-Hanging Fruit

Total points: 68

  • #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
    • 15/17 votes
    • We don't care whether city staff and elected officials have cars. In fact, I've heard suggestions that there might be some abuse in usage of city cars.
    • We should try to provide more cars through Philly Car Share.
    • We want to protect cars for Human Services visits.
    • Why can't there be more carpooling?
  • #20 Eagles: 4 points
    • 17/17 votes
    • The Eagles make a lot of money, and they should pay what they owe.
    • We don't want to be held hostage.
  • #3 DROP Program: 4 points
    • 12/16 votes
    • Reduction here doesn't eliminate jobs.
    • We may lose seasoned employees.
    • We should stop City Council from getting to participate. I've heard they can retire for a day and come right back the next day to collect both salary and pension.
    • This program provides incentive for tenured employees to retire which allows for new people/ideas to be brought in.
    • The program is not well-targeted/well-designed such that it will produce a good outcome.
  • #24 Sales tax: 6 points
    • 13/16 votes
    • These increases would be so minimal on a per household basis, and yet yield a very large amount of revenue.
    • Some participants felt that this was not a good choice because it did not target high-income households with a higher percentage tax than it did low-wage households. Other participants pointed out that in all likelihood the higher-income households would spend more, and therefore in actual dollars they indeed would be paying more taxes.
  • #23 Real Estate Transfer: 2 points
    • 13/16 votes
    • These percentages don't seem like they would equate to a lot of money to the average homebuyer.
    • There is a risk that this increase could drive people away from buying in the city.
    • We could see a further deterioration in an already troubled real estate market.
    • I don't think that the amount of the transfer tax is a deciding factor in whether and where to buy a house. Other things like schools, neighborhoods, sports, safety, etc. are bigger factors
    • I'd rather take a hit here than add it to the wage tax.
  • #17 Amusement: 1 point
    • 12/16 votes
    • People wouldn't even notice this.
    • This is discretionary spending, and people can decide not to do these things if they can't afford to.
    • Any increase here will be felt more by lower-income households and further devastate the families who can't afford to enjoy the city's cultural offerings.
    • People will decide for themselves whether they will spend money on these types of things.
    • Ultimately, the group voted to raise the amusement tax by 1%, but to exclude movie tickets from the increase in order that that amusement wouldn't become more expensive for low-income households. They took only 1 point for this item.
  • #26 Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 points
    • 15/15 votes
    • The commuters are paying a lower wage tax than the residents, but they are still using many of the city's services.
    • People have the choice not to work in Philly (if they don't like the tax).
  • #25 Wage Tax/Resident: 40 points
    • 14/15 votes
    • This is a really big revenue opportunity for the city - a relatively small increase drives a lot of additional revenue.
    • An increase would only take it back to where it was before.
    • We should exempt the first $35K of earnings from the approved increase.
    • We're not sure how much an increase will or won't hurt business in Philly, but
      it is a consideration.
    • Ultimately, the group decided to increase the resident wage tax by .4% (still at or below where it used to be), with the caveat that we exempt the first $35K of income from the increase. This resulted in 40 points for their tally.
No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 57

  • #13 Public Health: 8
    • 15/15 votes
    • Public-health centers are already busy and crowded.
    • A lot of people are losing jobs and/or insurance due to the economy and they need this service.
    • Community safety is a consideration if we reduce these services. We could see untreated illness that turns into an epidemic.
  • #7 Housing: 7 points
    • 15/15 votes
    • We should help people vulnerable to foreclosures.
    • The high rate of homelessness and the visibility of homeless citizens in public places have already been cited as discouraging businesses and visitors from coming here.
  • #8 Human Services: 19 points
    • 14/15 votes
    • If we reduced these services, we would see an increase in crime and homelessness.
    • Many people who are in need of mental-health services get that treatment here, and it aids them in their recovery.
    • These services include prevention services, services for the elderly, services for developmentally challenged individuals, and we think those are important.
    • It is ridiculous to cut in an area where would be foregoing supplemental funding from the state or federal government.
    • I'd rather see us cut hours if necessary than close anything.
  • #6 Free Library: 3 points
    • 8/15 votes
    • This was a close vote.
  • #5 Fire: 20 points
    • 13/15 votes
    • I would rather pay more taxes than touch this.

Proposed but did not make a 75% consensus:

  • #11a/b Police
    • There are a lot of officers that are not in good enough physical condition to do their jobs properly. They are overweight and should be made to get into better shape in order to do their jobs well.
    • I've heard that not all police resources are being fully utilized.
    • Some of police officers' time is spent in traffic court.
    • Of the possible departments that might have the visibility to receive supplemental funding by the state or federal government, Police would be high on the list, so why not take a little from here and hope that some of it comes back?
    • While the number of police officers is sufficient, we would like to see them better qualified.
Shared Pain

Total points: 0

  • We had one item (Police) that didn't make 75% for the NWNH, and on which we subsequently voted for as a "Shared Pain." It did not achieve a 50% approval for placement into "Shared Pain" either.
Gut Wrenchers

Total points: 0

  • We did not get to these.
Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
  • We did not get to these, although the participants did express interest.

top

Group 7

Moderators: Franne McNeal, Carol Lydon
Total points: 53
Group Description

The group began with 22 members who represented 10 neighborhoods in South, Center, North and Northwest Philadelphia. The group was half women and half men. The racial make-up was 90% Caucasian and 10% African American. The ages range from late-20s through seniors.

From the beginning, members seemed to ready to trust the process and the moderators, which allowed almost the entire time to focus on the options. After five minutes reviewing the work sheet, they were ready to work. For the initial introduction of the “Low Hanging Fruit” and the “No Way, No Hows,” each person provided one “top choice” until no additional choices remained. Generally, the conversation was fairly distributed among the group.

To allow more time for discussion of the “Shared Pain,” the larger group was split into three groups. When the group came together to finalize the “Shared Pain” bucket, the conversation was more heated on several topics and strong opinions were expressed. People expressed that there was a sense of community among the members in getting the work done. Overall, it was a good group that worked hard.

Five dissenting work sheets were filed.

Low-Hanging Fruit

Total Points: 18

  • #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points (80% of the vote)
    • Not much discussion. Several people commented on the number of city cars that can be seen at City Hall on any given day.
  • #17 Amusement tax: 2 points (80%)
    • A little discussion, but it was generally felt that it was a small price to pay.
  • #20 Eagles: 4 points (100%)
    • "The easiest is the Eagles. $8M! Are you kidding me?"
  • #24 Sales Tax: 6 points (80%)
No Way, No How

Total points taken off the table: 116

  • #2 Courts: 10 points (75% of the vote)
  • #4 Fairmount Park — 20% reduction: 1 point (75%)
  • #4 Fairmount Park — 30% reduction: 2 points (75%)
    • "We will be known as the city without fountains."
  • #5 Fire — 20% cut: 20 points (100%)
    • There was no support for ANY cuts for the Fire Department.
  • #6 Free Library — 20% cut: 3 points (100%)
    • There was absolutely no discussion regarding making a 20% cut to the Library budget. (A 10% cut was moved to the "Shared Pain" bucket.)
  • #7 Housing: 7 points (100%)
  • #11b Police — 20% cut: 52 points (100%)
    • There was no support for ANY cuts for the Police Department.
  • #12b Prisons — 20% cut: 21 points (100%)
Shared Pain

Total Points: 35

  • #1 Administrative: 5 points (60% of the vote)
    • City official clarified that cuts included secretaries, assistants, etc.
    • "The count of all positions has gone down. The Philadelphia Inquirer is not correct when they say that the number of Administrative jobs has risen 20% from the Street administration."
    • It may be necessary to separate the Mayor’s Office from the bundle in this option.
  • #1 Administrative — revenue option: 1 points (75%)
    • Clarification, administrative fees, not City Council fees.
  • #3 DROP program: 4 points (85%)
    • "$7M is disputed — maybe it should be removed."
    • City official agreed that the amount is from 2003 and could be changed.
  • #13 Public Health — revenue option: 1 point (60%)
  • #15a Streets — 20% cut: 5 points (75%)
    • "Why does it have to be 20%? I drive a scooter. If no one fixes potholes, I die."/li>
    • "In South Philadelphia, we aren’t getting anything anyway."
    • "I’ve been trying to get an alley light for five years."
    • "It’s ugly. Just ugly."
    • "We pay our taxes; we should get our streets cleaned, and our trash picked up."
  • #15b Streets — revenue option: 2 points (90%)
  • #25 Wage Tax/Resident: 12 points
    • "Pay a little more, and you get a lot."
    • "Where is the incentive to work harder?"
  • #26 Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 points
Items that were discussed but did not get enough votes to pass:
  • #6 Library — 10% cut
    • Libraries are needed because they provide access to computers. After-school programs and schools do not have libraries as they used to.
  • #8a Human Services
  • #8b Human Services
    • Frustration about lack of information.
    • City official noted that portions of the information are dependent on state funding
  • #9 Law
  • #13 Public Health
    • "There is a small fee for OTC meds ($2-$3), so a sliding scale would be fair."
    • "We are all equal humans, so why should we allow for different costs if we are all equal as human beings. There should be a flat rate vs. a sliding scale. Would a flat fee keep people from seeking care?"
    • "Reality is that we have different circumstances, different health concerns."
    • Fear of abuse of program and that the program will get out of whack. "People go from OTC medicine, to 'I need shampoo.'"
    • "We need to decide between what is absolutely vital vs. what is nice to have."
    • "City is disingenuous. Sixty-five percent of people who use city clinics have insurance." (Actual number is 48%.)
  • #14 Recreation
    • Discussion around reducing budget by 20% for 3 points
    • "My child would not be where he is without some of these programs."
  • #15c Streets — Sanitation Service Fee
    • The group kept returning to this option, but in the end could not come to a decision as to whether to adopt it or not.
    • "What? I have to pay them to stink up my street?"
    • Trash will be dumped elsewhere. "It will end up in the lot down the street, which is not acceptable either."
    • "My neighbors will not be able to afford $260/month. They are on a fixed income." (Note: Work sheet says the fee would be $260/year.)
    • The city pays for the amount of trash it dumps. If there is more recycling, the city pays less.
  • #18/19 BPT
    • Even though people felt that big companies like Comcast should pay more, raising this tax was hard on the small businesses and in the long run, would do more harm than good.
  • #21 Parking
  • #22 Real Estate
  • #23 Real Estate Transfer Tax
Gut Wrenchers
  • Did not reach. 
Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
  • Did not reach.
Memorable Quotes
  • "None of these cuts will feel good. What is crucial to our lives, not just our quality of life?"
Other
  • The PILOT Program was raised as a way to generate revenue.
  • Tax abatement was raised as an issue.
top

Group 8

Moderators: Carolyn T. Thompson and Bryan McHale
Total points: 34
Group Description:

The group had 10 participants. Based on a visual assessment, rather than asking participants to self-identify, the group demographics were: eight white and two black participants; five male and five female participants; a rage of adult ages. Two participants had to leave early; one participant left proxy votes on items that were important to him.

The group tackled the task at hand to the best of its ability. One member struggled to understand the different proposals and the math behind them, but stuck with the process. The group did not have a large range of opinions, which resulted in limited discussion around many of the issues. Six members of the group stayed for an additional 15 minutes to brainstorm new ideas after the session had ended.
No dissenting work sheets were completed.

Low-Hanging Fruit
  • # 20 Eagles: 4 points
    • 10 of 10 voted in favor (100%)
  • #17 Amusement: 2 points
    • 9 of 10 voted in favor (90%)
  • #24 Sales: 6 points
    • $8 is a small price to pay to keep services from being cut.
    • Could lower sales in the city. (People might buy in the suburbs instead.)
    • 8 of 10 voted in favor (80%)
  • #21 Parking: 2 points
    • Green city goals: Could cut back on car use. Increase public transportation use.
      • If fewer people pay to park then we won’t get the extra tax revenue.
    • If people pay $20 for parking, then they can pay $21.
    • May keep people from coming into the city.
    • 10 of 10 voted in favor (100%)
  • #22 Real Estate — raise to 35.05: 10 points
    • Concern about whom it would affect. Would senior citizens get the money back in tax rebates?
    • Need to clarify protection for renters.
      • Landlords will get tax breaks, but the cost will be passed on to renters.
    • 9 of 10 voted in favor (90%)
  • #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
    • Can use older vehicles.
    • White-collar workers can use their own cars.
    • Don’t cut those that deal with services. The city should focus on the most important vehicles first.
      • DHS workers shouldn’t be in the office because they don’t have a car to do site visits with.
    • 7 of 9 voted in favor (78%)
  • #3 DROP Program: 4 points
    • Will it really reducing cost like they say it will?
    • Should eliminate for elected officials. They shouldn’t be able to get it then run for office again.
    • 9 of 9 voted in favor (100%)

Total points: 34
Additional items discussed for “Low Hanging Fruit” that didn’t have enough support to make the list:

  • #1 Administrative: 5 points
    • There is a lot of wasted money in this area.
    • We should "start from the top."
      • Disagree: These are the people who will find the solutions.
    • Military analogy: Need people to lead.
      • Disagree: Others will rise to lead. Can’t compare military and the city.
    • 6 of 10 voted in favor (60%)
  • #12 Prisons: 10 points
    • Whole system needs to be reworked.
    • The budget says funding would be reduced for job training, but prisoners aren’t getting job training anyway.
    • Too many nonviolent offenders are locked up.
    • City needs to release people because of lawsuits.
    • Nonviolent offenders should do work for the city.
    • Should be restructured to increase reentry and treatment programs.
      • Put the proposed budget cuts into these programs instead.
    • 5 of 10 voted in favor (50%)
  • #15 Streets — levy fee for commercial collections: 2 points
    • 5 of 7 voted in favor (71%)
  • #25 Wage Tax/Resident: 1 point
    • This isn’t a progressive tax. We should move to having an income tax instead.
    • 5 of 8 voted in favor (63%)
No Ways, No Hows
  • #4 Fairmount Park: 2 points
    • Has received the same amount of funding for a long time. Hasn’t increased with inflation, which amounts to a reduction in funding.
    • Residents will leave because of decreased quality of life.
    • Has already been combined with the Park and Recreation Department; that is enough.
    • 8 of 8 voted in favor (100%)
  • #6 Free Library: 3 points
    • Many schools rely on them because they don’t have their own libraries.
    • 8 of 8 voted in favor (100%)
  • #13 Public Health (cuts): 7 points
    • Basic human service.
    • Need to keep until we have universal health care.
    • 7 of 8 voted in favor (88%)
  • #14 Recreation: 5 points
    • 9 of 9 voted in favor (100%)
  • #7 Housing : 7 points
    • There are too many homeless people already.
    • 6 of 6 voted in favor (100%)

Total points taken off the table: 24
Additional items discussed for "No Ways, No Hows" that didn’t have enough support to make the list.

  • #5 Fire: 20 points
    • Necessary service.
    • Is a large portion of the city budget; we should at least look at it.
    • Fires are going down because of new technology. (This information was later confirmed by the city representative, which led to a second vote and a change in numbers.)
    • Original vote: 6 of 8 in favor (75%); Second vote: 2 of 8 in favor (25%)
Shared Pain
Total points: 0
Gut Wrenchers
Total points: 0
New Ideas
  • Tax abatement
  • Sell bonds (like war bonds)
    • People are looking for other investment options because of the economy.
  • Have an income tax instead of a wage tax.
  • Have voluntary furloughs.
    • Allow city employees to exchange five days’ pay for one vacation day.
    • It should not affect their pension.
  • Transfer pensions into 401Ks.
    • Would protect the city from stock-market liability.
  • PILOTS
  • Row offices
  • First Judicial District
  • Court systems needs to be reworked.
    • Focus on restorative justice.
    • Juveniles shouldn’t go through the court system. The focus should be on youth development programs.

top

Group 9

Moderators: Josh Warner and Susanne Iannece

Total points: 84

Group Description:

Group 9 had 18 members: 11 female and seven male. The group was somewhat diverse, and included several Hispanic members. Age-wise, there was a large range, even though the group was mostly made of 30- 60-year-olds. We did have one infant, but no matter what we tried, we couldn’t get her to vote. Most participants came from South Philly, with members from Center City, Northwest Philly, Overbrook, Chinatown and Kensington rounding out the group. Two members had attended one or both of the previous workshops.

There were several group members that had a lot of background information on the various subjects being deliberated, and aside from a few minor speeches and the occasional fact war, the process was well-received and equally participated in. Despite the contrary views held by some of the more vocal group members, common ground was reached fairly quickly on many of the topics, which allowed the majority of the cuts and revenue sources to be covered (#18 and #19, Business Privilege Tax were the only topics not discussed) by the group. There were no outright “heated” exchanges, and overall the group had a strong tilt toward government efficiency. Before group work began, there were specific questions on the process, but never was the exercise itself (and its value) challenged, questioned or rejected by any group member during the process.

The "Gut Wrenchers" bucket was never reached with this group, and one dissenting work sheet was filled out by a group member who had fully participated in the group process.

Low Hanging Fruit
  • #17 Amusement: 2 points
    • Not much discussion on this one.
    • General agreement that those that could afford to go out to the Kimmel Center in the first place could afford a bit more on ticket prices.
    • 18/18 voted in favor.
  • #20 Eagles: 4 points
    • Not much discussion, as this was a quick vote.
    • No "cons" mentioned.
    • 18/18 voted in favor
  • #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
    • Group discussion again centered on abuse of a privilege for sedan-type vehicles, but with help from the city representative, it was understood that all city vehicles could be affected by the cut.
    • Most of the group agreed that "perk" cars should be cut, but emergency and service vehicles should be spared.
    • Good deliberation and agreement on the use of hybrid vehicles and Philly Car Share.
    • Using trans-passes for city workers was brought up by one member, and agreed to by the group.
    • 16/18 voted in favor (for this option without any alteration)
  • #22 Real Estate Tax: 5 points
    • Deliberation on this point was fairly straightforward.
    • Overall, the group thought small millage increases were fair but had some reservations.
    • One member keenly observed that only the effect on residential properties was listed in the "impacts" section of the work sheet. It was requested that impacts on commercial and industrial property holders be listed as well, in order to make a more informed decision.
    • Fair-value assessment was considered very important by the group before it came up to vote.
    • The PILOTs issue came up, and most group members thought that large institutions and nonprofits should pay more of their share.
    • 14/18 voted in favor
  • #1a Administrative: 5 points
    • The "efficiency of government" tilt of the group came to a head with this topic, and it was agreed that the City can make due with less administrative workers.
    • Several group members were sensitive to the number of job cuts this option would entail
    • It was then mentioned that "white collar" job experience can be leveraged for a replacement job in the private sector fairly easily
    • One young man mentioned that the Philadelphia Film Office should potentially be spared, if it happens to generate revenue for the City.
    • 14/18 voted in favor.
  • #1b Administrative (Recording Fees): 1 point
    • No dissenting views here, and the point was viewed as a no-brainer.
    • It was mentioned that many of these records are vital or necessary, yet they are rarely needed by most residents.
    • 15/18 voted in favor.
  • #3 DROP Program: 4 points
    • The group spent quite some time on this topic, but initially wanted clarification on whether it would save money or cost money.
    • After clarification by Julie, our city representative, on what the program is and its cost/benefit, the group moved on to the discussion on how elected officials have abused this program.
    • DROP for elected officials should be eliminated.
    • 18/18 voted in favor.
  • #10 Licenses & Inspections (15% cut): 2 points
    • The group got very vocal for this topic, as this seemed to be the chief example of government inefficiency that most members knew of.
    • After a few varying stories of L&I issues and mishaps, it was wholeheartedly agreed that the entire department should be overhauled and that workers don’t do their job well, are overpaid, and inefficient.
    • Most had an issue with the amount of layoffs the 30% cut would entail, so a proposal for a 15% cut was offered.
    • Despite the reduction of the cut, many group members repeated their strong opinions that the department needs a major overhaul.
    • Memorable Quote: After telling a personal story of L&I inefficiency and how it affected him, one man said "I don’t know, I guess this is a personal jihad on my part."
    • 18/18 voted in favor.
  • #21 Parking: 2 points
    • Discussion that this was a small increase and only for parking structures.
    • General agreement that discouraging car use was a good thing.
    • 18/18 voted in favor.
  • #2 Courts (10% cut): 5 points
    • One man who has had significant experience with the court system gave a passionate laundry list of reasons for overhauling and cutting this portion of government.
    • Inefficiencies were highlighted, and the specific word "scrutinized" was used when describing the need for overhaul and accountability of the system.
    • After some discussion regarding the State Supreme Court decision regarding court funding, it was slyly mentioned that perhaps the city could force the state’s hand in giving the past due funding by cutting this.
    • Memorable Quote: While discussing the link between police, courts and prisons, one person said that cutting court funding would "kind of put us in the line of fire."
    • Proposal for a 10% cut was offered.
    • 17/18 voted in favor.
  • #11a Police (5% cut): 13 points
    • This part of the deliberation was certainly the highlight of the evening, as one brave (but well-informed) member mentioned Police as a potential "Low Hanging Fruit," right at the second we had started to move on to the "No Way, No Hows."
    • It seems that the group member had been considering mentioning this for some time, as his reasoning was well thought out. The member started off by saying "Just hear me through," and made several arguments:
      • Many of the cuts would come from keeping unfilled positions unfilled and through standard attrition/retirement rates.
      • Certain specialty units do not benefit the entire city as a whole, as they are targeted to a specific area or type of crime (e.g., hostage negotiation unit).
      • The fact that the Federal Stimulus Bill includes monies for urban areas’ police departments, and that for the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, these funds can be relied upon.
      • That back in the 1960s, the city had 600,000 more people than today, yet the police force was the same size, such that the city was doing more with less resources than today.
    • After these arguments, the group responded with several cons, namely that a large police force would be needed in the event of a 9/11 type disaster, and that in bad economic times, crimes (especially petty crimes) certainly increase, and that patrols are effective as crime deterrents.
    • One group member offered that more police do not equate to less crime.
    • At this point, one group member offered a 5% cut option.
    • 15/17 voted in favor.

    • Total points: 49

    Mentioned as potential "Low Hanging Fruit" but not passing the 75% threshold vote were:

    • #23 Real Estate Transfer Tax
    • #4 Fairmount Park (This made it on to the "No Way, No Hows.")
    • #14a Recreation — 10% cut (This made it on to the "No Way, No Hows.")
    No Ways, No Hows
    • #6 Free Library: 3 points
      • This topic quickly came to a vote after little discussion.
      • Since libraries were taking cuts in November, the group felt that they did not deserve more, and relative savings (point value) wasn’t worth messing with.
      • 16/17 voted in favor.
    • #7 Housing: 7 points
      • One group member said it simply from the "Impacts" section: that 501 shelter beds would be lost, which was wrong in and of itself, and that with those folks on the street, many more services would be needed (police, courts, health, prisons, etc.).
      • After no dissenting opinions were offered, 16/17 voted in favor.
    • #8 Human Services: 19 points
      • While the first group member to speak in favor of this mentioned children’s services, the discussion quickly turned to the matching grant monies from state and federal sources, and how cutting this would be losing out on money.
      • 17/17 voted in favor.
    • #13 Public Health: 7 points
      • The group did not deliberate on this topic.
      • It was offered as NwNh because of the burdens that cuts would place on other parts of government and society, and then quickly came to a vote.
      • 17/17 voted in favor.
    • #4 Fairmount Park: 2 points
      • The majority of the discussion on this topic took place in the "Low Hanging Fruit" section, as it was offered for that bucket first.
      • The group member who offered this (as a NwNh) mentioned that more and more people will be using the park system in stressful economic times because it is free.
      • It was mentioned that cuts here would have a disproportionately high effect on children.
      • Dissenting views (from the previous discussions for "Low Hanging Fruit") focused on the fountains and mansions cuts, and that the jobs lost could likely be rehired or filled after the Fiscal 2010 budget year.
      • 14/17 voted in favor.
    • #14 Recreation: 5 points
      • This topic was also previously brought up and discussed for "Low Hanging Fruit."
      • Because it received zero votes for "LHF," one group member mentioned that it should go in the "No Way, No How" bucket.
      • Deliberation was short, but the fact that kids need recreation centers was brought up and agreed upon, and that low-income families often depend on them.
      • 17/17 voted in favor.
    Total points taken off the table: 43
    Mentioned as "No Way, No Hows" but not passing the 75% threshold vote were:
    • #5 Fire — 20% cut
    • #12 Prisons
    Shared Pain
    • #23 Real Estate Transfer Tax: 2 points
      • This was brought up under "Low Hanging Fruit," but did not pass the 75% threshold. The pro for including it in "Shared Pain" was the prospect that people only buy/sell once, twice, or three times in their lives.
      • Deliberation then came on the prospect of discouraging home sales in an already stagnant market.
      • One member questioned what projections the city had used for the revenue growth figures, given the current market conditions.
      • Julie mentioned that the city was using very conservative estimates, and the revenue could be a lot higher with this tax increase if the market rebounded.
      • 16/17 voted in favor.
    • #24 Sales Tax: 6 points
      • It was mentioned that the sales tax is progressive in nature, and that folks can consume less when affected by an increase.
      • A counterpoint came when one member mentioned that people will go elsewhere to purchase expensive items, which might be a revenue loss for the city.
      • Again, market conditions were mentioned, and a rhetorical question of "what happens in the next fiscal year," was asked by a member to try and get others to consider that revenues could potentially be less even if taxes increase.
      • 10/17 voted in favor.
    • #26b Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 points
      • The group discussed this as a fairness issue: Those who work in the city and use services here need to pay, too.
      • One group member mentioned Conshohocken and the Comcast Center-type tax shelter deals, and that a commuter tax serves to drive jobs elsewhere.
      • One person mentioned that some cities levy a "per head" tax for workers, instead of a wage tax.
      • 12/17 voted in favor.
    • #15a Streets (20% cut): 10 points
      • The deliberation on all subsections of #15 Streets was very passionate.
      • Although the group considered the cuts and both revenue options, the Commercial Levy revenue option was never brought to a vote, and the Sanitation Service Fee did not pass the 50% threshold.
      • Right from the get go, one member mentioned that with all this recycling, and a reduction in the amount of trash being picked up and transported, the city should be realizing savings.
      • "Pay as you throw" was rejected, but just barely. Issues of illegal dumping dominated the conversation, and one person mentioned that those that clean the public areas or alleys around their homes would be charged for public garbage.
      • After getting nowhere with the revenue options, one member offered the 20% cut, and it came to a vote fairly quickly without any dissenting viewpoints.
      • 13/17 voted in favor.
    • #25b Wage Tax/Resident: 12 points
      • In true "Shared Pain" fashion, the Resident Wage Tax was brought up.
      • The regressive nature was highlighted, and the group agreed that low-income people would be the hardest hit.
      • The $25 per $25,000 in income was the aspect that most of the discussion revolved around, even with the prior regressive/low-income dissenting opinions.
      • 10/17 voted in favor.
    Total points: 35
    Mentioned as Shared Pain but not passing the 50% threshold vote were:
    • #15c Streets (Pay as you Throw / Sanitation Service Fee): 13 points
    • #12a Prisons (10% cut): 10 points
    top